Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Claim Status
The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 1, 2, 4-5, 8-11, 13-15, 17-18, 21, 24 & 26-28 filed 05/28/2026.
Argument 1
Applicant submits amended claim 1 no longer recites a mental process because automatic recognition, adjustment of image data, calculation of a trimming center and shift amount, and determination of a trimming position cannot reasonably be performed entirely in the human mind.
After reviewing applicant arguments, 35 USC 101 Alice guidance and claim limitations, examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response, amended claims do not require a specific computational procedure that the human mind is incapable of performing. Amended claims broadly require recognition of anatomy, consultation of a reference, determination of a center and positional difference and selection of a trimming position. The claims do not define how those results are computed at the level of a particular formula, algorithm, pixel processing technique or computer data structure.
In view of above arguments, examiner submits rejection is sufficient and respectfully maintained.
Argument 2
Applicant also argues amended claim is analogous to USPTO Example 39.
After reviewing applicant arguments, 35 USC 101 Alice guidance and claim limitations, examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response, examiner submits Example 39 concerns a specifically recited process of training a neural network using digital training images and particular transformations. Present independent claims do not require neural network training or any corresponding computer specific training process. Instead, present claims recite generalized image recognition and arrangement results performed by a professor. USPTO examples are fact specific teaching tools and do not establish eligibility where materially different claims do not recite the technical details upon which the example’s conclusion depended.
Applicant has not identified a claimed improvement to the functioning of the processor, output apparatus, image acquisition equipment, or another technological field.
In view of above arguments, examiner submits rejection is sufficient and respectfully maintained.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to as ineligible under subject eligibility test. In the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes (Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, dated Tuesday, December 16, 2014, page 74621), The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional device elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1, 14 & 27-28
Step 1
This step inquires “is the claim to a process, article of machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes,
Claim 27 – “Method” is a process.
Claims 1, 14 & 28 - “Systems”, “Devices”, “Server” “Apparatuses” or “Non-Transitory CRM” are machines.
Step 2A - Prong 1
This step inquires “does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or natural phenomenon”. This claim appears to directed to an abstract idea.
The limitation of “a hardware processor configured to automatically recognize a structure of a subject in a medical image and automatically adjust the medical image based on the recognized structure; and an outputter that outputs the adjusted medical image, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to acquire an automatic trimming reference, calculate a trimming center position and a shift amount based on the automatic trimming reference and the recognized structure, and determine a trimming position of the medical image based on the trimming center position and the shift amount.”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (e.g. mathematical concepts, mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “hardware processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “hardware processor” language, “recognizes, adjusts, outputs” in the context of this claim encompasses covers performance of the limitation in the mind (e.g. mathematical concepts, mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity).
STEP 2A – PRONG 1 - CONCLUSION
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2
This step inquires “does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites one additional element – using a “hardware processor” to perform “recognizes, adjusts, outputs “steps. The “hardware processor” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor) “a hardware processor configured to automatically recognize a structure of a subject in a medical image and automatically adjust the medical image based on the recognized structure; and an outputter that outputs the adjusted medical image, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to acquire an automatic trimming reference, calculate a trimming center position and a shift amount based on the automatic trimming reference and the recognized structure, and determine a trimming position of the medical image based on the trimming center position and the shift amount.” such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
STEP 2A – PRONG 2 - CONCLUSION
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The critical inquiry here is does the claim recite additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception? The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a “hardware processor” to perform “recognizes, adjusts, outputs “steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
As to claims 2 & 15, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“hardware processor; generic image processing functions (rotate/trim/center”), mental process (“deciding whether and how the image should be rotated, centered or trimmed”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claims 3 & 16, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“hardware processor; rotation operation”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claims 4 & 17, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“hardware processor; lookup decision logic using recognized structure/order info”), mental process (“selecting a reference based on anatomy/order info tracks human evaluation/judgment”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“selection/rule application around the core adjustment”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claims 5 & 18, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“hardware processor; stored reference data fields”), mental process (“defining reference parameters resembles human set rules/criteria”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“parameterization of the reference”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claims 6 & 19, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“hardware processor; stored reference parameter”), mental process (“wherein the automatic adjustment reference for the medical image is a reference for adjustment of a rotation angle of the medical image or a reference for position adjustment of a rotation center of the medical image”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“wherein the automatic adjustment reference for the medical image is a reference for adjustment of a rotation angle of the medical image or a reference for position adjustment of a rotation center of the medical image”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claims 7 & 20, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“hardware processor; anatomical/shape descriptor data”), mental process (“classifying/identifying shape anatomical part”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“how data is to be used”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claims 8 & 21, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“storage/memory and hardware processor”), mental process (“deciding whether to adjust based on part/order info mirrors human decision making”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“storing flags and deciding whether to proceed or not”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claims 9 & 22, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“storage/memory and hardware processor”), mental process (“rule following selection per item resembles human judgment application of protocols”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“storing configuration and selecting which steps to run is IESA”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claims 10 & 23, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“storage/memory and hardware processor”), mental process (“choosing reference based on recognized part/order”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“storing/looking up references”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claims 11 & 24, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“storage/memory and hardware processor”), mental process (“picking setting multiple reference items”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“multi field storage selection”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claims 12 & 25, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“medical image”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claims 13 & 26, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“learned model and hardware processor”, mental process (“identifying or classifying the anatomical structure shown in the image ”)). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7, 10-12, 14-20, 23-25 & 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weimker et al. (U.S. Publication 2010/0246910) in view of Barski (U.S. Publication 2008/0031505)
As to claims 1, 14 & 27-28, Weimker discloses a hardware processor configured to automatically recognizes a structure of a subject in a medical image (101, Fig. 1 & Abstract discloses extracting anatomical structure. See [0038-0039]) and automatically adjust the medical image based on the recognized structure ([0005-0008, 0016, 0041] discloses orientation may be changed by rotating the image and the medical image is realigned until a threshold.); and an outputter that outputs the adjusted medical image ([0016, 0044, 0046-0047] discloses realigned medical image may be presented to the clinician for a quick verification).
Weimker is silent to acquire an automatic trimming reference, calculate a trimming center position and a shift amount based on the automatic trimming reference and the recognized structure, and determine a trimming position of the medical image based on the trimming center position and the shift amount.
However, Barski discloses acquire an automatic trimming reference, calculate a trimming center position and a shift amount based on the automatic trimming reference and the recognized structure, and determine a trimming position of the medical image based on the trimming center position and the shift amount. ([0015, 0028, 0030, 0032-0039] discloses automatically selecting, positioning and applying a virtual plate to crop a medical image around a recognized anatomical region. See Barski’s virtual plate as automatic trimming reference as it defines dimensions, center, orientation, and placement of the region retained when the medical image is cropped.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Weimker’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to reduce manual Panning, Zooming and Cropping and Reduce the amount of image data transmitted and stored.
As to claims 2 & 15, Weimker in view of Barski discloses everything as disclosed in claims 1 & 14 respectively. In addition, Weimker discloses wherein the automatic adjustment of the medical image includes at least one of adjustment of a rotation angle of the medical image, position adjustment of a rotation center of the medical image, adjustment of trimming of the medical image, and position adjustment of a trimming center position of the medical image. ([0016, 0041] discloses rotating the image.)
As to claims 3 & 16, Weimker in view of Barski discloses everything as disclosed in claims 1 & 14 respectively. In addition, Weimker discloses wherein the automatic adjustment of the medical image is adjustment of a rotation angle of the medical image or position adjustment of a rotation center of the medical image. ([0016, 0041] discloses rotating and translation)
As to claims 4 & 17, Weimker in view of Barski discloses everything as disclosed in claims 1 & 14 respectively. In addition, Weimker discloses wherein the hardware processor determines, based on the recognized structure or imaging order information on the medical image, an automatic adjustment reference for automatically adjusting the medical image. ([0007-0008, 0015, 0024, 0039] discloses determining whether the extracted anatomical areas correspond to reference anatomical areas, the reference anatomical areas having associated thereto data indicating a correct orientation.)
As to claims 5 & 18, Weimker in view of Barski discloses everything as disclosed in claims 4 & 17 respectively. In addition, Weimker discloses wherein the automatic adjustment reference for the medical image includes at least one of a reference for adjustment of a rotation angle of the medical image, a reference for position adjustment of a rotation center of the medical image, a reference for adjustment of trimming of the medical image, and a reference for position adjustment of a trimming center of the medical image. ([0007-0008, 0015-0016, 0041] discloses orientation data used as a basis for rotation/realignment.)
As to claims 6 & 19, Weimker in view of Barski discloses everything as disclosed in claims 4 & 17 respectively. In addition, Weimker discloses wherein the automatic adjustment reference for the medical image is a reference for adjustment of a rotation angle of the medical image or a reference for position adjustment of a rotation center of the medical image. ([0007-0008, 0015-0016, 0041] discloses reference orientation data framework)
As to claims 7 & 20, Weimker in view of Barski discloses everything as disclosed in claims 4 & 17 respectively. In addition, Weimker discloses wherein the automatic adjustment reference is information indicating a shape of an imaging part as an imaging target or an anatomical part of the imaging part. ([0014, 0042, 0036-0038] discloses reference anatomical area examples and “area/anatomical area” and shape based alignment via contours/shape features)
As to claims 10 & 23, Weimker in view of Barski discloses everything as disclosed in claims 1 & 14 respectively. In addition, Weimker discloses a storage where each imaging part as an imaging target is associated and stored with an automatic adjustment reference for automatically adjusting the medical image, wherein the hardware processor determines the automatic adjustment reference based on an imaging part as the imaging target, the imaging part being the recognized structure, or imaging order information on the medical image. ([0015, 0036-0039, 0046] discloses pre stored reference anatomical areas/images with associated orientation data, selected/used based on the anatomical area being processed.)
As to claims 11 & 24, Weimker in view of Barski discloses everything as disclosed in claims 1 & 14 respectively. In addition, Weimker discloses wherein an automatic adjustment reference for automatically adjusting the medical image has a plurality of items, wherein the medical image output apparatus further comprises a storage where each imaging part as an imaging target is associated and stored with each item of the plurality of items of the automatic adjustment reference, and wherein the hardware processor determines the each item of the plurality of items of the automatic adjustment reference based on an imaging part as the imaging target, the imaging part being the recognized structure, or imaging order information on the medical image. ([0012, 0015-0017, 0038, 0042 discloses multiple reference aspects used in alignment (reference images/areas plus similarity/threshold plus contour/shape features, tied to specific anatomical areas/modules. )
As to claims 12 & 25, Weimker in view of Barski discloses everything as disclosed in claims 1 & 14 respectively. In addition, Weimker discloses wherein the medical image is a radiographic image. ([0012, 0038] discloses X-ray as an example modality for which modules may be designed. )
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 8-9, 13, 21-22 & 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Weimker et al. (U.S. Publication 2010/0246910) in view of Barski (U.S. Publication 2008/0031505) as applied in claims 1, 14 & 27-28 above further in view of Yeluri et al. (U.S. Publication 2010/0080427)
As to claims 8 & 21, Weimker in view of Barski discloses everything as disclosed in claims 4 & 17 respectively. In addition, Weimker discloses automatic correction based on recognized anatomy. ([0005-0008, 0038-0041, 0046])
Weimker is silent to a stored per imaging part enable disable flag.
However, Yeluri discloses storing and selecting default protocol/hanging protocol behavior based on modality/anatomy/procedure and header/order info i.e. a stored rule set controlling whether/how processing is applied for a given exam type: [0009-0011, 0023] discloses hanging protocol allow display based on modality, anatomy and procedure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Weimker in view of Barski’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to make Weimker’s automatic adjustment selectively enabled/disabled per recognized body region/procedure and improve workflow configurability.
As to claims 9 & 22, Weimker in view of Barski discloses everything as disclosed in claims 4 & 17 respectively. In addition, Weimker discloses multiple adjustment operations used during realignment attempts. ([0016, 0041])
Weimker is silent to storing, per imaging part, whether to perform each item of a plurality of adjustment items.
However, Yeluri discloses DDP that applied a series of image processing functions (i.e. multiple items) and (via hanging protocol/protocol rules) ties what is applied to modality/anatomy/procedure: [0010, 0023, 0038] discloses a series of processing steps/functions; Example processing steps/functions include flipping/rotation, zooming, panning, brightness/contrast; Protocol rules based on modality/body part/procedure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Weimker in view of Barski’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to store and control, per exam/anatomy type, which adjustment items are executed.
As to claims 13 & 26, Weimker in view of Barski discloses everything as disclosed in claims 1 & 14 respectively. In addition, Weimker discloses structure recognition via algorithms for object detection/segmentation. ([0038])
Weimker in view of Barski is silent to a learned model obtained by machine learning.
However, Yeluri discloses wherein the hardware processor uses a learned model obtained by machine learning ([0087-0089]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Weimker in view of Barski’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to improve robustness/accuracy of anatomical classification and the downstream adjustment decision.
CONCLUSION
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen P Coleman whose telephone number is (571)270-5931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Moyer can be reached at (571) 272-9523. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Stephen P. Coleman
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2675
/STEPHEN P COLEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights